Re:AWS vs. GCP reliability is wildly different
by dilyevsky on Wednesday September 21, 2022 @06:24PM
(#32932368)
Ec2 does not have live migration. On azure it’s spotty so not every maintenance can offer it.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:AWS vs. GCP reliability is wildly different
by ta20200710 on Wednesday September 21, 2022 @07:33PM
(#32933032)
EC2 does support live migration, but it's not public and only for certain instance types/hypervisors.
Re:AWS vs. GCP reliability is wildly different
by _msw_ on Wednesday September 21, 2022 @07:51PM
(#32933179)
Here's a comment that I made in a past thread.
Re:AWS vs. GCP reliability is wildly different
by dilyevsky on Wednesday September 21, 2022 @10:15PM
(#32934109)
My experience running c5/6 instances makes me very confident ec2 doesn’t do live migration for these. Fwiw gcp live migration on latency sensitive workloads is very noticeable and often time straight up causes instance crash
Re:AWS vs. GCP reliability is wildly different
by dwmw2 on Thursday September 22, 2022 @01:28AM
(#32935087)
Intrigued by this observation. What is it about your experience that leads you to conclude that EC2 doesn't do live migration?
And could it be phrased differently as "EC2 doesn't do live migration badly"?
Re:AWS vs. GCP reliability is wildly different
by dilyevsky on Thursday September 22, 2022 @02:02AM
(#32935233)
Mainly the barrage of "instance hardware degradation" emails that i get whereas on gcp those are just migrated (sometimes with a reboot/crash). Also there is no brownout. I've never used t2/3s which apparently do support migration which would make sense.
Re:AWS vs. GCP reliability is wildly different
by my123 on Thursday September 22, 2022 @02:23AM
(#32935356)
After some kinds of hardware failure, it can become impossible to do live migration safely. When a crash can ensure due to a live migration from faulty HW, I'd argue that it's much better to not attempt it.